Take a few photos. See the sights. Pass 'em on.
ottonis: This Lytro camera represents the consequential evolution of a revolutionary concept that had been presented to the public a few years ago. Not necessarily this particular camera but the concept behind it certainly represents the future of photography. I dare to predict that in 10y from now most cameras will use further refined and improved implementations of this technology. People who are ridiculing the Lytro camera are the same type of people who ridiculed the emerging digital photography 20y ago. We all know how digital phography has evolved and developed and how it almost entirely replaced film photography.This is the future. Certainly not in its final form, but the idea represents the future of fotography. Progressive photographers will embrace this (and other= novel technologies and romantic souls will dismiss it - till the Nikon Df mark 8 will be based just on this Lytro concept.
@T3- agreed. Putting everything in focus is bad composition. You are the photographer/ artist. It is up to you to compose the shot, and take the viewer's eye into the scene to get him/her to see the product, the item, whatever it is, that is the essence of your photo. If this is designed to allow for interaction with the viewer/ consumer of the photo, there must be SOME reason you the photog/ artist are putting this photo into their world. Are you doing it as a commercial photog? If so, you want to direct their eye to the product you are trying to sell. Fashion? Ditto. Landscape? Ditto. Macro? Ditto. IMHO your goal as an artist is to direct the attention of the viewer. Otherwise, it is just a fun gimmick, letting the viewer play around with the non static image. Fun at first but if they are looking in order to buy your produce, you they will want to know, to see, to learn about the product. Anything else is just playing around. No sale.
illdefined: So many close-minded traditionalists here...1% of whom make any prints with their 20+ megapixel Bayer beasts..
Using this camera to make prints on paper is like watching a 3D movie with one eye closed. It completely defeats its intended purpose.
This camera isn't to correct focusing mistakes after-the-fact no, its to make INTERACTIVE STILLS. Yes, intended for the medium you are using right now, the SCREEN, which the vast majority of us look at _way_ more than ink on wood pulp, whether on our desks, the wall, or in our hands.
This camera makes photos you _interact_ with, so even in fine art applications, the output of this camera would be on Touch Screens, not paper. That said, 1080p is only 2mp; the latest commercial displays are 4k, which is just 8mp! That should put some of the worn-out MegaPixel Pride here in check (doubt it).
For those with no imagination, expect every working Product or Food Photographer to get one of these or risk losing business, and thats just for starters.
"This obviates the need for all that..." In your dreams maybe. This camera and the previous one obviates nothing in my view. Will Lytro or someone else eliminate the need for Photoshop in the future? Sure. Look at what has transpired with panoramic shooting. What is on your phone is better than what you could do with hundreds or thousands of dollars of equipment and software. But it took many iterations, many companies to get where we are now. Ditto for this. I am not bad mouthing the effort to move the technology, just that this is not it, not anywhere close, IMHO. All that P'shop, video, GIF animations do on the screen is way more than just picking your focus point, then picking another and another. Like I said, big whoop. When Lytro or somebody comes up with something that makes video super easy (yes, it is hard work. we agree there) then ya might have something to applaud. Making a product pop? Not yet, my brutha.
Yep. Holograms are big. So big you never see them... anywhere. Ditto for this gimmick. Dynamically focuses as your eyes follow? This does not do that. Why not just use what is available now (focus stacking, anyone) to make everything in focus in the first place.
Hogwash. Gimmick. Yes kids want to move things around on the iPad. This does not do that and won't ever come close to that. Moreover, that interactivity is on an iPad or smartphone. Yes, when you can take a product shot and have it animated automatically for insertion into an ad or product shot, you've got something and it will engaged the viewer. Already available on iPad or touchscreen 'puter. But that is video and we already have tons of small videos as well as animated GIFs and the ability to do many of these types of things is already available, albeit thru P'Shop. But neither kids or adults are touching screens just to change the focus. Big whoop. I predict they will be bankrupt soon. Cool tech for a need no one has.
Paul Ennis: I don't think it's dSLR's which are the issue, I think it the Japanese have basically not understood the idea that creative, innovative, software is of fundamental importance. IMHO their problems extend way beyond cameras. Look at companies like Canon, Nikon, Panansonic. The functionality of the software on their cameras is basically unchanged from 15 years ago, is it really surprising that they have been left behind? They are being dragged into innovating, but they have no idea how to lead.
The market for compact cameras from these companies has already been destroyed, as they have been content to sell dull cameras which don't offer much of an improvement on smart phones. Look at cameras like the S95, which retailed for £300+...get real Canon, it's just not good enough.
I think you are right on target with your point about them not understanding the software side (both inside and outside of the camera). While the numbers on the phone side equate to huge numbers of horrible photos, there is no question about the creativity of app designers and the tools they are giving to phone users. Even Adobe is missing this. People want to CREATE not just shoot. It is almost impossible, really, to shoot something "new" in photography WITHOUT intensive software editing. Not that we need that in our cameras but I think Nikon's abandonment of CNX2 is a horrible admission that they, the Japanese/ Nikon, simply cannot innovate beyond what's available now. Imagine CNX2 with the filters that app designers have put into the hands of iPhone users. Nikon could have created a niche there and tied, somehow, their cameras to a creative software suite. Wow, that woulda been a contender !
larrytusaz: I've never given a rip what the masses do as far as camera choice, because I'm smarter than they are with regards to this stuff & while I'm no professional I want photographs that look at least decent.
I would NEVER use a camera phone for anything other than, say, taking a photo of my leaky pipe so the hardware store knows what I need as a replacement. But for REAL images that matter, I'd rather not even take a photograph at all than to say I used a freaking PHONE to take it. You have got to be kidding me.
Even for snapshots, you've got to be kidding me. People act like toting a small camera is like packing a mule to haul off the camping gear for a week in the Grand Canyon or something. Good grief some people are just so lazy. If a Sony RX100 breaks your back, you might as well just move into a nursing home & start crocheting while watching "Mayberry R.F.D" while snoozing in your rocking chair.
Sound like a film guy. "They will NEVER make a digital that has the resolution of film" yada yada. While I, too, will hold on to my DSLRs until they pry my old dead fingers from the grip, the numbers don't lie. I still find it amazing that NikCanPan, et al won't put WiFi transmitters in DSLRs. The thing is, all these photos STILL end up in dusty bins. In the film days it was old shoe boxes. Today, they are all in the "cloud" or some hard drive and NEVER get viewed more than a few times.
But I don't think it is about size. It is the fact that the populus is carrying their camera with them, disguised as a smart phone. If they did not have it with them at all times, they would not be taking so many photos. And as long as they are happy with them, posted up on Facebook and Instagram, they don't need anything else and won't be buyers. And that, I am afraid, will not change in the glorious future.
Bruce McL: People do not want to take pictures. Getting an image into a camera is not anybody's goal. Even getting images on to a computer is not anybody's goal. The goal is to look at pictures and to share pictures. Cell phones allow people to achieve those goals, most cameras do not.
In the sense of helping people use their pictures, nearly every phone camera is far "better" than nearly every dedicated camera. Adding Android to a dedicated camera would help them catch up to cell phone cameras.
Agree wtih Bruce. People want to share pictures. Just did it seconds ago with a co worker's new baby. Why NOT put WiFi upload capability into EVERY camera??? If you have a DSLR and take a great shot and want to upload it to Facebook etc. why not. Your "followers" are now your photo biz customers. Look at what Chase Jarvis does. If you take a great shot and want to sell yourself to your customers, whoever they are, you want to post it as quickly as possible. We've now got in-camera processing to a degree. Adobe and others are putting apps on phones. Photographers, pro and amateur want to share, NEED to share. Why haven't the mfgs. gotten the message? And now, the iPad gets a better camera? Think iPad owners won't be taking pics with that big, beautiful screen?!?!? Just wait.
Call me when they put this into a Photoshop filter. Other than that, it seems pure gimmickry. Go ahead, try it out on their site. Once you've "refocused" then what? Flip on through to the next one and the next? It would get old in a big hurry and offer nothing that photographers want. Kinda like the gazillion iPhone photo apps that offer the funky effects but not much more. This is even more gimmicky. I don't see Apple falling for this either.
I bought the P7100 over these others, so take this with that bias in mind. What I like is the external controls, the image quality and some other small features such as working with a IR remote control. This is not a given for all cameras and is often not mentioned in reviews. Moreover, the P7100 has infrared receivers for the remote on the front AND the back. It has 3 and 5 shot bracketing for HDR and this is a great combo with an IR remote, sitting on a tripod.Ditto for macro mode, great to have an IR remote and a small tripod. It has an intervalometer, although limited, so can shot only every 30 secs, as a minimum. Seems they could fix this in OS update, to allow say, one ever 1 or 2 seconds. I gotta have a real viewfinder, even if not perfect. But a lovely LCD like the Nikon has is also nice to have. And I think the photos, especially macro are tack sharp for a compact. Oh and an ND filter. Not many have that.
While this is a beautiful photo, what are the reflected lights in her eyes? Since you've posted the original, it almost looks as if there is a soft box light which is causing these large square ish catch lights in her eyes. As large as they are, they are somewhat distracting.
In addition, the skin softening in post processing is quite heavy, to my taste, and also quite visible in the original version. Composition is very good, bokeh in background is very good. Very striking photo and a beautiful young lady.
eNo: I think taking time before each shot is important, but not just to look at what's in or out of the frame. Before you decide what belongs in the frame you need to spend perhaps more than 5 seconds deciding what the "point" of the shot is, what story you are trying to tell, then use that to decide what's important to the shot and what isn't. That in turn will lead you to decide what belongs in the frame.
Great point. Many of us waffle between photo journalists, satisfied with recording the image for "history" (our own or otherwise) or just to "get the shot" and the fine art or "message" photo ("beauty" or "unique"). Yet the why of the shot is important for either and, indeed, for any shot. The 5 for 5 is great advice to get us, as photographers, to think a bit harder about why we shoot something. Just my $.02. Thanks, eNo.